I can’t stand InstaHack or his faux-libertarianism— a ‘libertarianism’ which has always appeared to be about providing himself some cover for the relentless mainstreaming of wingnut crap on his blog, typically done by linking and remarking “Heh, Indeed” or “Read the whole thing”.

But that’s the kind of cutting edge, closely reasoned glibertarian ‘analysis’ that lands you columns like this one for the Washington Examiner—in light of which it’s time to revisit some of Reynolds’ earlier work:

Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Who is responsible for Warmabomber’s violent agenda?

Filthy. Parasites. Disgusting, overbreeding candidates for sterilization and extermination. Possessed of false morals and a “breeding culture.”

Hitler talking about the Jews? Nope. This is Discovery Channel hostage-taker James Lee talking about … human beings. Compared to Lee, Hitler was a piker, philosophically: Der Fuehrer only wanted to kill those he considered “subhuman.” Lee considered all humans to be subhuman.

Lee was a nut, an eco-freak who said he was inspired by Al Gore’s environmental scare-documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” His badly written “manifesto” underscores his craziness. He hated “filthy human babies.”

But, of course, Lee’s not alone. Looking at the environmental literature, we find terms like those used above — the currently stylish description is “eliminationist rhetoric” — used widely, and plans for mass sterilization are fairly common.

Instahack goes on to claim that…yep, it’s those academics and durn scientamists that are to blame, along the way recycling an old smear against science ‘czar’ John Holdren:

Lee was a violent nut, but not a scientist. Holdren is a scientist (who held nutty views, at least at one point) but he’s not a violent nut.

But here’s what worries me: What if we get the two in combination?

There are plenty of nuts out there. There are also a lot of scientists.

There are plenty of nuts out there. There are also a lot of squirrels.

Let’s see what nut this particular squirrel goes on to find:

In contemporary America, no respectable person would advocate, say, the involuntary sterilization of blacks or Jews. Why, then, should it be any more respectable to advocate the involuntary sterilization of everyone? Or even of those who cause “social deterioration?”

Likewise, references to particular ethnic or religious groups as “viruses” or “cancers” in need of extirpation are socially unacceptable, triggering immediate thoughts of genocide and mass murder.

Why, then, should it be acceptable to refer to all humanity in this fashion? Does widening the circle of eliminationist rhetoric somehow make it better?

I don’t see why it should, and I don’t see why we should pretend — or allow others to pretend — that hate-filled rhetoric is somehow more acceptable when it’s delivered by those wearing green shirts instead of brown.

Looks like it’s time for a flashback from Instapundit’s past. Fire up the TARDIS!:

Instahack, 2006:

On the other hand, it’s also true that if democracy can’t work in Iraq, then we should probably adopt a “more rubble, less trouble” approach to other countries in the region that threaten us. If a comparatively wealthy and secular Arab country can’t make it as a democratic republic, then what hope is there for places that are less wealthy, or less secular?

See, Insty of all people knows whereof he speaks when it comes to glennocidal tendencies:

1.) Glennocidal Tendencies: the belief that the mass-slaughter of human beings based on their race or ethnicity can be both “unavoidable” and “provoked.”

For example, here is Reynolds’ characteristically passive-aggressive attempt to justify genocide back in November 2002:

Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide — unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That’s what happens when two societies can’t live together, and the weaker one won’t stop fighting — especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it’s important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don’t, the military strategy we’ll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond “vigorous.”

Got that? The mass slaughter and genocide of human beings can be both ‘unavoidable’ and ‘provoked’: as Sadly No put it back in 2006, “Glenn is literally saying that unless we take “vigorous action” to topple every single Middle Eastern government, we’ll eventually have to commit genocide against the entire Muslim world. For those of you counting at home, that’s one billion people who would be wiped out in an “unavoidable” and “provoked” mass extermination.”

Wellplayed, Instahack. Well played.